Re: Starving people refuse to eat food aid
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Which makes it so much easier to just think of it as "The car cost
>> me $10,000 that one year and nothing for the next nine."
>
>If that were true, then if the car is totalled after you've had it for
>a year, you've lost nothing.
>--
>Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
>Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
With reasonable insurance that's close to being true.
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
Hatunen
<tednolan>) wrote:
>In article <hg6r9u$d9d$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Which makes it so much easier to just think of it as "The car cost
>>> me $10,000 that one year and nothing for the next nine."
>>
>>If that were true, then if the car is totalled after you've had it for
>>a year, you've lost nothing.
>
>With reasonable insurance that's close to being true.
But he doesn't believe in insurance.
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> On 15 Dec 2009 03:17:48 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
> <tednolan>) wrote:
>
>> In article <hg6r9u$d9d$2...@reader1.panix.com>,
>> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> Which makes it so much easier to just think of it as "The car cost
>>>> me $10,000 that one year and nothing for the next nine."
>>> If that were true, then if the car is totalled after you've had it for
>>> a year, you've lost nothing.
>> With reasonable insurance that's close to being true.
>
> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>
>
Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Live Journal: http://seawasp.livejournal.com
Dimensional Traveler
planet.
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Walter Bushell
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
"Do you believe in infant baptism?"
"Of course, I've seen it done."
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Keith F. Lynch
> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>> Hatunen wrote:
>>> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>> Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
I'm not averse to getting insurance. But I'm not desparate for it.
If an insurance company offers a product I want for a price I'm
willing to pay, I'll sign up.
> Of course it exists, its a conspiracy. Those _always_ exist on
> Keith's planet.
What *have* you been smoking? I spend much of my time arguing
*against* conspiracy theories. What cosnpiracy theories do you
think I believe in?
Dimensional Traveler
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>
>>> Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
>
> I'm not averse to getting insurance. But I'm not desparate for it.
> If an insurance company offers a product I want for a price I'm
> willing to pay, I'll sign up.
>
>> Of course it exists, its a conspiracy. Those _always_ exist on
>> Keith's planet.
>
> What *have* you been smoking? I spend much of my time arguing
> *against* conspiracy theories. What cosnpiracy theories do you
> think I believe in?
What do you call your belief that all non-car users are forced to
subsidize the infrastructure for car users without getting any benefit
from it?
David Scheidt
It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
--
sig 32
Dimensional Traveler
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>
>>> Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
>
>I'm not averse to getting insurance. But I'm not desparate for it.
>If an insurance company offers a product I want for a price I'm
>willing to pay, I'll sign up.
We're a little unclear on how you determine that the price is
right.
Hatunen
How? Be specific.
Kurt Busiek
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:19:47 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) wrote:
>>>> Hatunen wrote:
>>>>> But he doesn't believe in insurance.
>>
>>>> Keith believes in insurance; he knows it exists.
>>
>> I'm not averse to getting insurance. But I'm not desparate for it.
>> If an insurance company offers a product I want for a price I'm
>> willing to pay, I'll sign up.
>
> We're a little unclear on how you determine that the price is
> right.
It seems to be that if the _average_ customer gets more out of it than
he puts into it -- i.e., if the companies lose money -- then it's a
good price.
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
David Scheidt
:On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
:<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
:>In alt.folklore.urban Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
:>:Keith F. Lynch wrote:
:>:> What *have* you been smoking? I spend much of my time arguing
:>:> *against* conspiracy theories. What cosnpiracy theories do you
:>:> think I believe in?
:>
:>:What do you call your belief that all non-car users are forced to
:>:subsidize the infrastructure for car users without getting any benefit
:>:from it?
:>
:>It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
:How? Be specific.
Are you under the impression that taxes levied on gasoline and the
sale of automobiles come anywhere near covering the money spent on
building and maintaining roads? It's not even the case that gasoline
taxes pay the federal share of road building. There are routine
transfers of general funds money ("income tax" mostly, eh?) into the
supposedly self-financing highway fund. How states, counties and
cities chose to fund their road building varies, but I'm unaware of
anywhere that's actually self supporting. That's just road building
and repair. It doesn't cover snow plowing and such like.
Nor does it include costs of environmental degredation, which are
borne by everyone. Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
their share of te cost is a political question.
--
sig 51
Don Freeman
> In alt.folklore.urban Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> :On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
> :>
> :>It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
>
> :How? Be specific.
>
<...>
> Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
> their share of te cost is a political question.
>
Which would need to be answered before determining if "non-drivers
subsidize car users". Which is the assertion that you made.
--
-Don
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
(Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
more than worth it, it is necessary.
David Scheidt
No. It's not. The assertion that I made is that non car users pay
the some of costs of having infrastructure for the use of cars. No
one with any level of clue about how things are funded disagrees with
that. Whether they receive a benefit from the infrastructure for cars
is an entirely seperate question.
--
sig 89
David Scheidt
The answer to that question is undoubtedly "yes".
--
sig 52
Kurt Busiek
So your comment was a non-sequitor?
Because the statement you were responding to didn't simply say that
Keith thinks non-drivers subsidize car users, but that he thinks
non-car users subsidize the infrastructure for car users without
getting any benefit from it.
That other clause -- the one you ignored and later tried to dismiss as
a "political question" would seem crucial to the claim, not an
irrelevant side issue. Take it away and you're not talking about the
same claim any more.
Kurt Busiek
> In alt.folklore.urban "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> :David Scheidt wrote:
> :> Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
> :> their share of te cost is a political question.
> :>
>
> : No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
> :and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
>
> The answer to that question is undoubtedly "yes".
_Do_ you do without them?
Don Freeman
> In alt.folklore.urban Don Freeman <free...@cosmoslair.com> wrote:
> :David Scheidt wrote:
> :> In alt.folklore.urban Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> :> :On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
>
> :> :>
> :> :>It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
> :>
> :> :How? Be specific.
> :>
>
> :<...>
> :> Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
> :> their share of te cost is a political question.
> :>
>
> :Which would need to be answered before determining if "non-drivers
> :subsidize car users". Which is the assertion that you made.
>
> No. It's not.
So that was another David Scheidt that made the statement I quoted?
--
-Don
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
Are you not a resident of the USA? If not, the question's irrelevant.
If you are, I find it VERY hard to believe that you don't ever shop at
any store. Because all stores are supplied via the public roads (trucks,
my boy, trucks. And the trucks cause more wear than the cars; the damage
to the road system is much more due to heavy vehicles, which is why they
have EXTRA fees associated with them).
If you ARE a shining pillar of complete independence (aside from your
electronics, I suppose), well, this makes you even more unusual than
Keith Lynch.
Mac
> > :David Scheidt wrote:
> > :> :On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
> > :>
The extra fees associated with trucks (outside of light delivery
vehicles) are risible when compared to the ratio of actual damage
caused. The ratio of relative damage from a truck to a passenger car
starts around 2,000 to one, and goes up from there to around 10,000
times, for heavier vehicles. (The damage goes up exponentially,
roughly to the 4th power, with increasing weight.)
Leaving the whole question of whether vehicles pay their way at all,
cars pay for roads; trucks wreck 'em.
Anthony "PeeBleepin'Ee" McCafferty
Keith F. Lynch
> (The damage goes up exponentially, roughly to the 4th power, with
> increasing weight.)
Sorry, exponential != polynomial.
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
> and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
> propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
> (Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
> the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
> second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
> more than worth it, it is necessary.
It may demonstrate that the money is worth it, but it does not
demonstrate that the correct people are forced to pay for the money.
Fairness would have each highway user paying his share, and those who
benefit purely incidentally, by being involved in commerce with highway
users, would pay only indirectly as part of the prices of the goods and
services which they purchase.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Bill Snyder
wrote:
>On 2009-12-23 15:42:37 -0800, David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> said:
>
>> In alt.folklore.urban "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
>> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> :David Scheidt wrote:
>> :> Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
>> :> their share of te cost is a political question.
>> :>
>>
>> : No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
>> :and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
>>
>> The answer to that question is undoubtedly "yes".
>
>_Do_ you do without them?
Of course we could. And after the first week or so, most of us
wouldn't complain at all. Now the ones who had to bury the other
99%, they might bitch a little.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Mac
> Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
> > (The damage goes up exponentially, roughly to the 4th power, with
> > increasing weight.)
>
> Sorry, exponential != polynomial.
True. That was loose metaphorical usage, used inappropriately.
Anthony "especially around here" McCafferty
David DeLaney
>"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU> wrote:
>> > (The damage goes up exponentially, roughly to the 4th power, with
>> > increasing weight.)
>>
>> Sorry, exponential != polynomial.
>
>True. That was loose metaphorical usage, used inappropriately.
So trucks are NP-complete, even though their routes may not be?
>Anthony "especially around here" McCafferty
Dave "if we could just get that Banach-Tarski matter-replicator working..."
DeLaney
--
\/David DeLaney posting from d...@vic.com "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://www.vic.com/~dbd/ - net.legends FAQ & Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.
Thomas Prufer
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
>and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
>propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
>(Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
>the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
>second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
>more than worth it, it is necessary.
I have no horse in this race, as I own a car, live in a walking-friendly city
with the kind of public transportation NYC has, and have a bicycle and bike path
to everywhere, near enough.
However, you are to some extent equating cars for individual transportation with
freight and goods transport, which is not universally and self-evidently true...
Thomas Prufer
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hgu9m7$bl6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
>> and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
>> propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
>> (Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
>> the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
>> second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
>> more than worth it, it is necessary.
>
> It may demonstrate that the money is worth it, but it does not
> demonstrate that the correct people are forced to pay for the money.
>
So you're against all taxes and want use fees? I can go for that. Good
luck figuring out how to make that work, though. There's a reason I
accept the existence of taxes which are used for stuff I don't agree with.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
To an extent, but the point is the cost of maintaining the road system
-- which would be needed even if you somehow magically got rid of all
private passenger vehicles, due to commercial needs (yes, even to
individual houses, if you want to keep things like the U.S. Mail, FedEx,
UPS, fire service access, etc.). As others have emphasized, the majority
of the wear and tear is from trucks, not passenger cars. Which means,
continuing the thread of thought, that complaining about the cost of
maintaining the roads only makes sense if you want to get rid of TRUCKS
-- the commercial vehicles. So either you (in the generic "someone
arguing against the cost" you) can do completely without the goods and
services from commercial vehicle transportation, or you have a practical
and affordable alternative.
Default User
> Fairness would have each highway user paying his share, and those who
> benefit purely incidentally, by being involved in commerce with
> highway users, would pay only indirectly as part of the prices of the
> goods and services which they purchase.
As mentioned earlier, I've never gotten any use from the public school
system, and very little use from the mass transit system. I do get good
use from the public library, but many others don't. Why should roads be
any different? The tax system has never been "pay for what you use".
That's part of why you have public systems.
Brian
--
Day 325 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
Kurt Busiek
> Mike Ash wrote:
>
>
>> Fairness would have each highway user paying his share, and those who
>> benefit purely incidentally, by being involved in commerce with
>> highway users, would pay only indirectly as part of the prices of the
>> goods and services which they purchase.
>
> As mentioned earlier, I've never gotten any use from the public school
> system, and very little use from the mass transit system.
Aside from the indirect benefits of having those around you educated
and able to travel as they live and work as part of a society you
(theoretically) are more comfortable in that you would be in a society
that didn't have these things.
But those are indirect benefits, so perhaps they should all be use
fees, passing the cost along to employers and such, where it would turn
up in the price of goods that you buy so you'd still wind up paying a
share of the cost to get the janitors in to ManuFactoCorp, and the cost
to have educated your local police and selectmen would mean higher
salaries for them which would come out of public funds, and...
> I do get good
> use from the public library, but many others don't. Why should roads be
> any different? The tax system has never been "pay for what you use".
> That's part of why you have public systems.
...yeah, or we could do it that way.
Cheryl
Surely every time you benefit from the skills of someone educated in a
public school system, you benefit from the public school system yourself.
--
Cheryl
Default User
> Default User wrote:
> > As mentioned earlier, I've never gotten any use from the public
> > school system, and very little use from the mass transit system. I
> > do get good use from the public library, but many others don't. Why
> > should roads be any different? The tax system has never been "pay
> > for what you use". That's part of why you have public systems.
> >
>
> Surely every time you benefit from the skills of someone educated in
> a public school system, you benefit from the public school system
> yourself.
Possibly. That assumes that there would be no educated people
otherwise. You're missing the point. The tax system doesn't work on the
"I should pay only for those things I use." There are perceived public
benefits for things, so everybody pays. The roads aren't any different.
Some people want somehow except the road system, even though that
probably has much more general effect than something like a public
library.
Brian
--
Day 325 of the "no grouchy usenet posts" project
erilar
How about making the truck operators pay more of the cost of keeping the
roads usable, then?
--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist
Kurt Busiek
It'd show up in the prices of the goods you buy, with a profit margin
tacked on.
Which isn't to say it couldn't be done, just that you probably wouldn't
like the results much. And then you face the argument, why not do that
with everything, and prices skyrocket all over the place, including
Keith's bus rides and groceries.
Dimensional Traveler
consumer (price hikes). That might not matter much for some things but
the increase in food prices could be a problem.
--
"Dude. They've gone fractal."
Kurt Busiek
Basically, it changes the equation from buying road maintenance
wholesale (albeit in a sloppy and wasteful system) and buying it
retail, with multiple layers of profit margin built in. Some people
buy less stuff, so it transfers the burden to people who do more of the
buying of stuff, but it also increases the burden, so even those who
buy less stuff may still be paying more. And the people who spend a
greater percentage of their income on goods (the poor) get hammered the
hardest.
Public financing of the highway system (and other things) can be
thought of as a massive buying club, where maybe you don't buy sardines
a lot, so the discount on them isn't helping you, but if you eliminate
the buying club you pay more for everything, so it doesn't matter that
you don't buy sardines.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
This would make sense if you wanted to do away with everything but trucks.
However, given that everything that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ROAD
eats, wears, plays with, etc., -- and DRIVES -- is almost certainly
delivered on or using a truck, that's not a wise or practical thing to do.
If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
paid for the roads, there would be no roads. All die. O the embarrassment.
erilar
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
> paid for the roads, there would be no roads. All die. O the embarrassment.
I just said they should pay more because they're harder on the roads,
not that they should pay all the cost. Look closely 8-)
Canth
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
I'm not so sure trucks do that much more damage proportionately. While
axle loads are indeed much greater for trucks than cars, the pressure
per square inch exerted on the road is not so different. Car tyres
seem to vary between 5 & 9 inches in common sizes with about 1-2" on
the road; giving a load bearing surface of 10 - 40 sq in/axle. The big
trucks I've checked out seem to have tyres of around 15 inches width
and about 12 inches flat on the ground giving them a load bearing
surface of around 720 sq in/axle. I can't find the post where axle
weights were mentioned for cars & trucks, but I think the trucks were
10-20 times the weights for a car. Given that the load bearing
surface is also 10-20 times for a truck verses a car, then I see the
pressure on the road as roughly equivalent. Finally, taking into
account vehicle miles driven by each type of vehicle, and I think the
cars might actually do more damage than the trucks.
I will accept that once the road surface is damaged, the impact damage
of a truck tyre should be much greater than the car. So trucks should
break up badly maintained roads much quicker than cars, but the damage
to a well maintained road should be done more by cars than trucks.
AS! ds++:+++ a++ c+++ p++ t+ f-- S+ p+ e++ h++ r++ n++ i+ P+ m++ M
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> I will accept that once the road surface is damaged, the impact damage
> of a truck tyre should be much greater than the car. So trucks should
> break up badly maintained roads much quicker than cars, but the damage
> to a well maintained road should be done more by cars than trucks.
Then there is the "pumping" action of a semi on a concrete slab when the
ground is frozen and therefore the water immediately below the slab
cannot soak into the underlying gravel. This has been a major cause of
pavement damage on interstate highways here in Connecticut.
Charles
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> In article <hh0pis$cbu$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
>> paid for the roads, there would be no roads. All die. O the embarrassment.
>
> I just said they should pay more because they're harder on the roads,
> not that they should pay all the cost. Look closely 8-)
>
And they DO pay more. As was mentioned more than once, previously.
But not the equivalent of the wear they do.
And if they did, the result is what I said.
Look closely.
John Francis
Canth <kwar...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>I'm not so sure trucks do that much more damage proportionately. While
>axle loads are indeed much greater for trucks than cars, the pressure
>per square inch exerted on the road is not so different. Car tyres
>seem to vary between 5 & 9 inches in common sizes with about 1-2" on
>the road; giving a load bearing surface of 10 - 40 sq in/axle. The big
>trucks I've checked out seem to have tyres of around 15 inches width
>and about 12 inches flat on the ground giving them a load bearing
>surface of around 720 sq in/axle. I can't find the post where axle
>weights were mentioned for cars & trucks, but I think the trucks were
>10-20 times the weights for a car. Given that the load bearing
>surface is also 10-20 times for a truck verses a car, then I see the
>pressure on the road as roughly equivalent. Finally, taking into
>account vehicle miles driven by each type of vehicle, and I think the
>cars might actually do more damage than the trucks.
Your calculations are flawed.
A simple point; car tyres (or tires) are inflated to maybe 30-40psi;
trucks two or three times that. Inflation pressure is pretty close
to what the load per square inch on the road is. So trucks put at
least two or three times the load onto the road per square inch, over
many, many more square inches.
Mike Ash
"Default User" <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
All I'm saying is that the "you benefit from it indirectly, thus you
should pay for it" argument is stupid.
I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for roads. Just that the justifications
being floated make no sense. You should pay for roads because they're a
public good and paying for them privately would be massively
inefficient. Not because they make your local grocery store prices
cheaper.
David Scheidt
:On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:18:48 -0500, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
:<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
You might think that. Reality, of course, doesn't care what you
think. Damage done to the road surface is very rarrely caused by
insufficent pavement strength, where the the pavement breaks under the
point load. It's caused by a complicated set of factors, mostly
involving movement. Damage to the fourth power of axle loading is the
basic rule of thumb, but it's very complicated, and it depends on the
both the road surface and the subsurface.
--
sig 103
Mike Ash
"Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> Mike Ash wrote:
> > In article <hgu9m7$bl6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> No, it's a purely practical question: can you do without all the goods
> >> and services provided via the vast public road systems? How would you
> >> propose distributing those goods and services without said road system?
> >> (Rail already does pretty much all it can). If you can't say "yes" to
> >> the first, or have a reasonable, practical, and affordable answer to the
> >> second, then you have demonstrated that all the money spent on roads is
> >> more than worth it, it is necessary.
> >
> > It may demonstrate that the money is worth it, but it does not
> > demonstrate that the correct people are forced to pay for the money.
>
> So you're against all taxes and want use fees? I can go for that. Good
> luck figuring out how to make that work, though. There's a reason I
> accept the existence of taxes which are used for stuff I don't agree with.
Sigh.
No, I'm against ILLOGIC.
I'm just pointing out the flawed argument. It so happens that I agree
with the conclusion that roads should be publicly funded. I just
disagree with how everybody is reaching that conclusion.
Kurt Busiek
But "roads are a public good" is another way of saying, "society in
general benefits from them, and therefore each of us do, directly and
indirectly." That's what a public good is; something of benefit to the
public.
That they make grocery prices cheaper is merely one of the many ways
they're a public good.
Wayne Throop
: I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for roads. Just that the
: justifications being floated make no sense. You should pay for roads
: because they're a public good and paying for them privately would be
: massively inefficient. Not because they make your local grocery store
: prices cheaper.
Yes, OK, but isn't the fact that (among many other things) grocery store
prices are lower what *make* them a public good instead of a public bad?
More or less? That is, "people in general benefit, like schools and
streetlights and fire departments". The claim that "I get no benefit
out of a fire department, because I haven't had a fire and am careful to
have my home built out of non-flamable materials rather than awood-frame
construction deathtrap" is akin to "I get no benefit out of the highway
system, because I'm careful to stay away from those deathtrap cars,
which have a fatality for every hundred million miles of transport".
I get no kick in a plane
Flying too high
With some guy in the sky
Is my idea of nothing to do
Yet i get a kick out of you
--- Cole Porter "I Get a Kick Out of You"
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Mike Ash
wrote:
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for roads. Just that the
> : justifications being floated make no sense. You should pay for roads
> : because they're a public good and paying for them privately would be
> : massively inefficient. Not because they make your local grocery store
> : prices cheaper.
>
> Yes, OK, but isn't the fact that (among many other things) grocery store
> prices are lower what *make* them a public good instead of a public bad?
> More or less? That is, "people in general benefit, like schools and
> streetlights and fire departments". The claim that "I get no benefit
> out of a fire department, because I haven't had a fire and am careful to
> have my home built out of non-flamable materials rather than awood-frame
> construction deathtrap" is akin to "I get no benefit out of the highway
> system, because I'm careful to stay away from those deathtrap cars,
> which have a fatality for every hundred million miles of transport".
It's the difference between "people in general benefit" and "you,
personally, benefit". People have been arguing the latter. "Public good"
means the former.
Mike Ash
wrote:
General versus specific. "Public good" means society benefits. People in
this thread have been saying that Keith (or whoever else) benefits
personally. It's not the same thing.
Wayne Throop
: It's the difference between "people in general benefit" and "you,
: means the former.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that citing where specific
people benefit is one way to demonstrate that there is general benefit,
especially if the method of benefit is either generic or nigh-universal.
And while it's true that, "you should do it because you personally save
cash money" is bogus, still a claim of "I, personally, don't benefit at
all" can be refuted that way, can't it? That is by citing ways that
general individuals benefit, demonstrates that any randomly chosen
individual would tend to benefit from the general social good?
Hm? Yes? No? Maybe?
Kurt Busiek
I think they're making the argument that society in general benefits
_and_ that individuals benefit, as part of society. And I think it's a
pretty strong argument.
The person who says, "I don't benefit, myself, so I don't want to pay
for it" doesn't care that society benefits as a whole. If he doesn't
benefit himself, he doesn't want to pay. So "socienty in general
benefits" is a loser argument with someone like that, because their
viewpoint is inherently selfish. The way to get through that is to
show them what parts of the societal benefit inure to them, whether
it's affordable prices and available goods at the grocery stores, the
ability of police, fire, recue, medical and others -- and public
transportation -- to come through one's neighborhood and so on.
And the argument seems to be working, because Keith ether hasn't been
arguing against it, or has been doing so so feebly that no one's seen a
necessity to bother answering him (I have Keith killfiled, so I only
see his posts when others quote him). This is what happens when Keith
is backed into a corner; he doesn't admit he's wrong, he simply
abandons that particular argument, or occasionally complains that
people are being mean to him by treating his dumb assertions as dumb
assertions rather than as heartfelt requests for education that just
happen to be accompanied by dogged resistance to accepting any
education.
He seems to be hanging in there on one or two aspects where he feels he
can still quibble, but when someone points out that without roads his
grocery store would be minimally stocked and cripplingly expensive, he
shuts up on that front. That's sorta the closest thing there can be to
a win, when you're dumb enough to waste your time arguing with Keith.
I understand that you find the "it's a general societal good" to be a
compelling argument, but you weren't the guy being argued against.
Mike Ash
> : Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
> : It's the difference between "people in general benefit" and "you,
> : personally, benefit". People have been arguing the latter. "Public good"
> : means the former.
>
> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that citing where specific
> people benefit is one way to demonstrate that there is general benefit,
> especially if the method of benefit is either generic or nigh-universal.
It *could* be a small demonstration, but it's not very significant. And
that's not how I see it being used here. The argument here is going
straight from "you get an indirect benefit" to "therefore, you should
pay". The sensible argument, in my opinion, goes, "you get an indirect
benefit, which is an example of how everybody gets an indirect benefit,
this benefit is much greater when the good is paid publicly, therefore
we should all pay, and that includes you".
> And while it's true that, "you should do it because you personally save
> cash money" is bogus, still a claim of "I, personally, don't benefit at
> all" can be refuted that way, can't it? That is by citing ways that
> general individuals benefit, demonstrates that any randomly chosen
> individual would tend to benefit from the general social good?
> Hm? Yes? No? Maybe?
I disagree that "you benefit indirectly" is a reasonable refutation of
"I don't personally benefit". Unless you live in a shack in the woods
and are completely self-sufficient, we *all* benefit from *all* positive
human activity in an indirect manner. That doesn't translate into it
being sensible to tax everybody to pay for all of it.
As I see it, there are two reasons you should pay for something:
1) You benefit *directly*. Bob provides a service to me, I pay Bob. Not,
Bob provides a service to Joe, Joe provides a service to me using it, I
pay Bob.
2) *Everybody* benefits indirectly, and it's too inefficient to collect
only from those who benefit directly.
Mike Ash
wrote:
> > General versus specific. "Public good" means society benefits. People in
If it works, great, but that doesn't make it logical. The argument that
you benefit indirectly, therefore you ought to pay for it, can be used
to show that you ought to pay for anything and everything that's
positive in any way to anybody. Since this is obviously not true, the
argument must not be sound.
Even if you only accept one level of indirection, I don't see anyone
arguing that you ought to start directly paying the people who work for
the companies you buy stuff from, or that you should start subsidizing
their suppliers.
Mike Ash
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
> Even if you only accept one level of indirection, I don't see anyone
> arguing that you ought to start directly paying the people who work for
> the companies you buy stuff from, or that you should start subsidizing
> their suppliers.
I just realized that tipping is customary in many places, and that often
is directly paying the people who work for the companies you buy stuff
from. However, tipping is given in exchange for *direct* services from
that person, so it still doesn't count, even if it does match the
particular words I chose. :)
Dorothy J Heydt
Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>In article <mike-ACE18F.1...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com> wrote:
>
>> Even if you only accept one level of indirection, I don't see anyone
>> arguing that you ought to start directly paying the people who work for
>> the companies you buy stuff from, or that you should start subsidizing
>> their suppliers.
>
>I just realized that tipping is customary in many places, and that often
>is directly paying the people who work for the companies you buy stuff
>from. However, tipping is given in exchange for *direct* services from
And it's not always that direct. In a restaurant, for instance,
frequently the waitstaff collect the tips but they're pooled
among all the staff: cooks, dishwashers, everybody.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
Wayne Throop
I always thought that was an urban legend; I've certainly never seen
anybody of the bucolic persuasion interact with cows in such a manner.
And wikipedia agrees with that.
"Oh. Well that's very different." --- Emmily Litella
Kurt Busiek
We have a system that works for those, one that isn't unfeasibly
expensive. But it would be, if we applied it to roads and libraries
and public transportation and such.
So no, it's not that if you make one argument you must apply it to all
things -- that's what the other side of the argument is, that we
shouldn't collectively pay for roads because we manage to pay for other
things in other ways. Being just as all-in in the other direction
isn't logical, it's reductive.
The argument isn't "you benefit indirectly, therefore you ought to pay
for it," it's "you benefit both directly and indirectly, and it's
unwieldy to do it through normal commerce," which separates it from
those things that work well through normal commerce.
There are edge cases that can be argued about, but it's not necessary
to argue for a system that treats buying cat food and buying highways
in the same manner.
Still, your problem is the argument, not the conclusion. That you'd
make the argument in a different way is fine with me. If you think the
argument we've been making is illogical, no sweat -- it wasn't aimed at
you and you don't need to be won over.
Have a great December 25th.
Hatunen
Throop) wrote:
>: Mike Ash <mi...@mikeash.com>
>: I'm not saying you shouldn't pay for roads. Just that the
>: justifications being floated make no sense. You should pay for roads
>: because they're a public good and paying for them privately would be
>: massively inefficient. Not because they make your local grocery store
>: prices cheaper.
>
>Yes, OK, but isn't the fact that (among many other things) grocery store
>prices are lower what *make* them a public good instead of a public bad?
>More or less? That is, "people in general benefit, like schools and
>streetlights and fire departments". The claim that "I get no benefit
>out of a fire department, because I haven't had a fire and am careful to
>have my home built out of non-flamable materials rather than awood-frame
>construction deathtrap" is akin to "I get no benefit out of the highway
>system, because I'm careful to stay away from those deathtrap cars,
>which have a fatality for every hundred million miles of transport".
Some large suburban areas around Tucson are served by private
profit-making fire protection companies. Homeowners have to
subscribe to the service to have the fire company come put out a
home fire. Otherwise, the owner gets charged the full cost of the
fire suppression.
I think osmeone ocne told me that if you weren't a subscriber
they wouldn't put out your fire unless yousigned an agreement
while the fire was burning, but surely that can't be right.
http://www.rmfire.com/Services/fireEms.asp
--
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Thomas Prufer
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
> To an extent, but the point is the cost of maintaining the road system
>-- which would be needed even if you somehow magically got rid of all
>private passenger vehicles, due to commercial needs (yes, even to
>individual houses, if you want to keep things like the U.S. Mail, FedEx,
>UPS, fire service access, etc.). As others have emphasized, the majority
>of the wear and tear is from trucks, not passenger cars.
But the majority of the congestion is by passenger cars, the rush hour and
commuter stuff, and that bogs down the commercial traffic as well. And, in lots
of places, the answer to congestion is to build more lanes, though this often
means that the bottle neck is just moved upstream, or that traffic reroutes to
the newly-widened roads until they are just as unattractive as the other routes.
>Which means,
>continuing the thread of thought, that complaining about the cost of
>maintaining the roads only makes sense if you want to get rid of TRUCKS
>-- the commercial vehicles. So either you (in the generic "someone
>arguing against the cost" you) can do completely without the goods and
>services from commercial vehicle transportation, or you have a practical
>and affordable alternative.
Or, a bit less black-and-white, to say that the cost of maintaining roads should
be carried directly by those that cause it, in the proportion they cause it.
This would make the cost of freight go up, sure, but it would mean less money
need indirectly go to pay for road maintenance.
In effect the cost would be on the table, clear to see, rather than indirectly
borne. Neither way is inherently better, but there's a good case to be made for
that, particularly as the cost of maintaining a road can be easily related to
axle load, while relating the common good to the education of children is not
something quantifiable with any hope of consensus.
Thomas Prufer
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
> :: I just realized that tipping is customary in many places
>
> I always thought that was an urban legend; I've certainly never seen
> anybody of the bucolic persuasion interact with cows in such a manner.
> And wikipedia agrees with that.
>
I know three people who've actually participated in the tipping of cows.
Joy Beeson
Francis) wrote:
> A simple point; car tyres (or tires) are inflated to maybe 30-40psi;
> trucks two or three times that. Inflation pressure is pretty close
> to what the load per square inch on the road is. So trucks put at
> least two or three times the load onto the road per square inch, over
> many, many more square inches.
And road-bike tires start at 90 pounds and go up from there. When we
had the driveway paved, the contractor was most emphatic about keeping
my bicycle off it until it had had time to set.
I've seen asphalt roads where I *left tracks*. Since it was a very
hot day and I was riding uphill, I was not at all happy about that.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
Keith F. Lynch
> I could be wrong, but it seems to me that citing where specific
> people benefit is one way to demonstrate that there is general
> benefit, especially if the method of benefit is either generic or
> nigh-universal.
Even if everyone gets *some* benefit, that doesn't mean that the total
benefit exceeds the total cost. The way to ensure that is to have the
user pay. If road users were to pay the full cost of their road usage
directly, that will cause trucked products to become more expensive as
truckers pass on their extra costs to their customers. In the unlikely
event that the current amount of trucking is optimal, people will break
even, as taxes go down by the same amount as trucked goods increase in
price. More likely, it will cause the amount of trucking to go down
and more efficient modes of transportation (trains, ships) or more
local production to go up. Then the benefits will exceed the costs.
Yes, I'm aware that stores are not typically directly on rail lines or
docks. Trucks would still be used for the last few miles, but perhaps
not for thousands of miles.
Also, as Internet shipping from large warehouses increases, warehouses
can be relocated to be directly on rail lines or next to docks, if
that means a net savings for consumers.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
>> How about making the truck operators pay more of the cost of
>> keeping the roads usable, then?
> This would make sense if you wanted to do away with everything
> but trucks.
> However, given that everything that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ROAD
> eats, wears, plays with, etc., -- and DRIVES -- is almost certainly
> delivered on or using a truck, that's not a wise or practical thing
> to do.
The question isn't whether trucks should be abolished, but whether
it makes more financial sense for them to carry things thousands of
miles, or only the last few miles from the nearest railhead or dock.
If everyone was required to pay large amounts of money to build
and maintain vast networks of canals, which ships could then use
inexpensively, most goods would delivered by ships on canals, and
you'd probably be arguing that we should all keep paying since we
all benefit -- even though this system would probably be even more
expensive and inefficient than the current system.
> If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
> paid for the roads, there would be no roads.
I don't think anyone's suggesting that. Trucks may cause much more
road wear than cars, but the reason why roads are as *wide* as they
are is because of cars, not trucks. Also, car congestion often causes
trucks to go slower than the speed limit, thus imposing costs on
truckers. So car drivers should also pay.
People who don't directly use roads at all shouldn't directly pay
at all. They indirectly pay when buying goods that were carried by
truck, of course.
Walter Bushell
David Scheidt <dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
> In alt.folklore.urban Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
> :On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 04:39:34 +0000 (UTC), David Scheidt
> :<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> :>In alt.folklore.urban Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> :>:Keith F. Lynch wrote:
> :>:> What *have* you been smoking? I spend much of my time arguing
> :>:> *against* conspiracy theories. What cosnpiracy theories do you
> :>:> think I believe in?
> :>
> :>:What do you call your belief that all non-car users are forced to
> :>:subsidize the infrastructure for car users without getting any benefit
> :>:from it?
> :>
> :>It's quite the case that non-drivers subsidize car users.
>
> :How? Be specific.
>
> Are you under the impression that taxes levied on gasoline and the
> sale of automobiles come anywhere near covering the money spent on
> building and maintaining roads? It's not even the case that gasoline
> taxes pay the federal share of road building. There are routine
> transfers of general funds money ("income tax" mostly, eh?) into the
> supposedly self-financing highway fund. How states, counties and
> cities chose to fund their road building varies, but I'm unaware of
> anywhere that's actually self supporting. That's just road building
> and repair. It doesn't cover snow plowing and such like.
>
> Nor does it include costs of environmental degredation, which are
> borne by everyone. Whether the benefits to non car users outweigh
> their share of te cost is a political question.
And the cost of wars to secure sources of oil.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Even if everyone gets *some* benefit, that doesn't mean that the total
>benefit exceeds the total cost. The way to ensure that is to have the
>user pay. If road users were to pay the full cost of their road usage
>directly, that will cause trucked products to become more expensive as
>truckers pass on their extra costs to their customers.
I'd love to see how you propose to fairly divide up the specific
costs for the wide variety of vehicles using the roads.
Hatunen
<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor) <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>> erilar wrote:
>>> How about making the truck operators pay more of the cost of
>>> keeping the roads usable, then?
>
>> This would make sense if you wanted to do away with everything
>> but trucks.
>
>> However, given that everything that EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE ROAD
>> eats, wears, plays with, etc., -- and DRIVES -- is almost certainly
>> delivered on or using a truck, that's not a wise or practical thing
>> to do.
>
>The question isn't whether trucks should be abolished, but whether
>it makes more financial sense for them to carry things thousands of
>miles, or only the last few miles from the nearest railhead or dock.
It's a fair point but, generally, every time you have to tranfer
cargo from one mode of tranport to another it adds to the cost.
It's a snap with containers of course, but then you have to keep
track of the containers. A lot of empty containers have to be
sent back.
>If everyone was required to pay large amounts of money to build
>and maintain vast networks of canals, which ships could then use
>inexpensively, most goods would delivered by ships on canals, and
>you'd probably be arguing that we should all keep paying since we
>all benefit -- even though this system would probably be even more
>expensive and inefficient than the current system.
The US did have an extensive system of canals in the 19th
century. See, e.g.,
http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~lstevens/canal/canalmap.html The
railroads operated cheaply enough to drive them out of business.
Also the railroads could get to and from places that the canals
couldn't. Canals large enough to carry large ocean going ships
are another matter.
The railroads have trouble competing with trucking for freight,
trucking being generally less expensive and far more versatile.
Where once the railroads carried a great deal of freight of all
kinds, nowadays it seems to be mostly containers directly
offloaded from ships (which will be transferred to trucks near
the ultimate destination), bulk cargos like coal or ore where the
destination usually has a spur for direct delivery, and
automobiles in those enclosed car carriers. It's been a long time
since I've seen an actual boxcar on the transcontinental railroad
that passes through Tucson.
>> If the truck drivers/companies, and ONLY the truck drivers/companies
>> paid for the roads, there would be no roads.
>
>I don't think anyone's suggesting that. Trucks may cause much more
>road wear than cars, but the reason why roads are as *wide* as they
>are is because of cars, not trucks. Also, car congestion often causes
>trucks to go slower than the speed limit, thus imposing costs on
>truckers. So car drivers should also pay.
>
>People who don't directly use roads at all shouldn't directly pay
>at all. They indirectly pay when buying goods that were carried by
>truck, of course.
Don't forget that the trade carried by trucks also leads to
greater employment. In these times that's not to be sneered at,
but it would be very hard to figure out teh benefit to the
consumer. More employment meands more local taxes, more housing
paying the taxes that support schools....
Trucks carry many goods that the consumer never sees, such as
machine tools for manufacturing, ingredients for food plants,
usw. It would be very difficult to apportion these costs and the
benefits that they bring.
Kurt Busiek
> Trucks carry many goods that the consumer never sees, such as
> machine tools for manufacturing, ingredients for food plants,
> usw. It would be very difficult to apportion these costs and the
> benefits that they bring.
Keith is imagining all those companies simply jackin up their prices to
cover the cost of highway building and maintenance, and imagining that
it won't be much of a cost increase for him.
He may also be imagining that his taxes would go down -- as opposed to,
say, the wealthy paying less (or the money just going to other things)
and consumer good skyroketing in price -- which shows you right there
that it's an idle dream.
One only properly implemented by massive government data-gathering on
citizen travel (or toll roads everywhere, including in cities), but
Keith somehow imagines this not happening.
Mac
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 20:09:51 +0000 (UTC), "Keith F. Lynch"
>
> <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >Even if everyone gets *some* benefit, that doesn't mean that the total
> >benefit exceeds the total cost. The way to ensure that is to have the
> >user pay. If road users were to pay the full cost of their road usage
> >directly, that will cause trucked products to become more expensive as
> >truckers pass on their extra costs to their customers.
>
> I'd love to see how you propose to fairly divide up the specific
> costs for the wide variety of vehicles using the roads.
Weight, axle weight, and HP would give a short, quick and dirty
approximation, and since the actually allocated costs probably rise
with the fourth power, it'd be pretty straight forward to simply allow
people and businesses using vehicles smaller than a certain point to
apply for rebate, or to have untaxed sources of fuel. I don't
actually see this a difficult to structure. The politics of it is
another kettle of fish.
Anthony "Make mine fish chowder" McCafferty
Keith F. Lynch
> Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
>> I'd love to see how you propose to fairly divide up the specific
>> costs for the wide variety of vehicles using the roads.
> Weight, axle weight, and HP would give a short, quick and dirty
> approximation, and since the actually allocated costs probably rise
> with the fourth power, it'd be pretty straight forward to simply
> allow people and businesses using vehicles smaller than a certain
> point to apply for rebate, or to have untaxed sources of fuel.
That counts the road-damage cost of vehicles, but not the congestion
cost. Or the need for more and wider roads to handle all the traffic,
most of which is cars, not trucks. Or the risks they impose on
pedestrians and cyclists. Or the negative effects of global warming,
if that turns out to be real.
David Scheidt
:<k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
Well, certain classes of freight. If trucks paid their share of
highway taxes (which would put diesel fuel at something like 60 bucks
a gallon) rail would whoop the pants of nearly all long haul trucking.
It tells you something about the ineffeciency of long-haul trucking
that even with the billions in subsidies they get every year, there
are all sorts of markets they can't compete in.
--
sig 36
Hatunen
It wouldn't be difficult to structure but you're already letting
small vehicles off the hook. I'm not so clear on how that's
FAIRLY divided.
How about roads that ban trucks?
Hatunen
Did you snip the part just after where I said...
"Where once the railroads carried a great deal of freight of all
kinds, nowadays it seems to be mostly containers directly
offloaded from ships (which will be transferred to trucks near
the ultimate destination), bulk cargos like coal or ore where the
destination usually has a spur for direct delivery, and
automobiles in those enclosed car carriers. It's been a long time
since I've seen an actual boxcar on the transcontinental railroad
that passes through Tucson.
...just so you could make it look like I didn't know that?
David Scheidt
:<dsch...@panix.com> wrote:
:>In alt.folklore.urban Hatunen <hat...@cox.net> wrote:
:>:The railroads have trouble competing with trucking for freight,
:>
:>Well, certain classes of freight. If trucks paid their share of
:>highway taxes (which would put diesel fuel at something like 60 bucks
:>a gallon) rail would whoop the pants of nearly all long haul trucking.
:Did you snip the part just after where I said...
:"Where once the railroads carried a great deal of freight of all
:kinds, nowadays it seems to be mostly containers directly
:offloaded from ships (which will be transferred to trucks near
:the ultimate destination), bulk cargos like coal or ore where the
:destination usually has a spur for direct delivery, and
:automobiles in those enclosed car carriers. It's been a long time
:since I've seen an actual boxcar on the transcontinental railroad
:that passes through Tucson.
:...just so you could make it look like I didn't know that?
And you put it back, so you could avoid my point?
Oh, boxcars aren't much used because they're harder to load and
unload, and there are specialized cars for most things, not just bulk
cargos, but nearly everything that moves in carloads. And intermodal
containers work just as well on trains as on ships or trucks.
--
sig 35
R H Draney
"Our trains can move a ton of freight 436 miles on one gallon of fuel"
-- recent radio campaign by CSX
R H "they couldn't say it if it weren't true" Draney
--
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether you see the glass
more full like this?...or like this?